Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Weebots: Driveable Robots For Babies Who Need Them

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the so-many-good-ways-to-get-in-trouble dept.

Medicine 72

toygeek writes "Babies, as you may have noticed if you own one, like to get into all sorts of mischief, and studies show that exploring and interacting with the world is important for cognitive development. Babies who can't move around as well may not develop at the same rate as babies who can, which is why researchers from Ithaca College in New York are working on a way to fuse babies with robots to give mobility to all babies, even those with conditions that may delay independent mobility, like Down syndrome, spina bifida, or cerebral palsy."

cancel ×

72 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL ... (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41179603)

Well, I for one welcome our new cyborg-baby overlords.

And the grow up to become... (1)

amstrad (60839) | about 2 years ago | (#41180081)

Davros [wikipedia.org] !!!!

Don't you mean cry-borg overlords? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41183691)

I have a few and they are definitely overlords -- or are they underlords?

fuse ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179617)

fuse babies with robots ? er, ahem ?

Re:fuse ? (1)

Bovius (1243040) | about 2 years ago | (#41183299)

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the phrase "a way to fuse babies with robots". Nothing the rest of the summary or the article could say could possibly be more rad.

Coming soon... (2)

Alter_3d (948458) | about 2 years ago | (#41179633)

Looking forward to version 2.0. Now with wings!

Cherubs! [doomwiki.org]

Weebles (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about 2 years ago | (#41179643)

Here's hoping that if the babies find themselves wobbling, they won't fall down.

Image of one of these (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179653)

Cyborg baby [wordpress.com] .

Prior Art by Sheldon Cooper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179679)

In my most favored Big Bang Theory episode, Sheldon Cooper was so scared of an early death due to an accident of some sort (i.e. falling down stairs), that he wouldn't leave his apartment. To facilitate this lifestyle, he made a virtual presence robot to interact with the world on his behalf, while he sat at home. Although, my favorite part of that episode was the cameo by the greater of Apple's two Steves.

Re:Prior Art by Sheldon Cooper (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179779)

He sounds like a psychopath. This is the "geek positive" show people are raving about? Seriously?

Oh, and "telepresence" goes back decades, little boy. Term coined in 1980. Depicted in fiction in 1942 by Heinlein ("Waldo")

Re:Prior Art by Sheldon Cooper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180237)

Not a psycho. Clearly an aspie (if you've ever watched the show).

Re:Prior Art by Sheldon Cooper (1)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41180129)

Saw a play a few months ago called "The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow" that played with the same theme (though in this case it wasn't crippling fear of accidents, but just bog-standard agoraphobia). Interesting play, though I felt it suffered a bit from mood whiplash (there were a number of hilarious comedy scenes, and a number of soul-crushingly depressing scenes, all stuck together randomly ;)).

Re:Prior Art by Sheldon Cooper (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41184203)

Mod parent up; I hate sitcoms more than ANYONE (I don't own even own a TV) but the dialogue in that show contains some truly brilliant lines (just try and seclude yourself from the mediocrity of the world; it'll follow you right down into your hole). :)

Baby destroyer. (3, Informative)

Xoltri (1052470) | about 2 years ago | (#41179741)

I have always said how terrifying it would be if a giant baby, maybe 20 stories tall, were let loose in a city. It would cause untold amounts of destruction all while being oblivious to its own malice (babies are not evil). Now we are one step closer, although it will be in some kind of a mech suit and not just physically large.

Re:Baby destroyer. (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41179801)

Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids.
Take the word baby out of the equation.

Some asshole woke me 6 times last night screaming there head off.
My roommate is always shitting his pants and laughing at me.
Some guy just peed into my computer*.
Evil, evil, evil
Next time a parent talks about all the crap they do for their baby, try to think of it as someone else besides a baby.

*When my son was just learning how to walk, he stood up, dropped his diaper and just peed through the vent on the side of the computer, barely missing the power supply.

Re:Baby destroyer. (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | about 2 years ago | (#41179861)

No, I have 2 kids. Don't get me wrong, they can be destructive, selfish, annoying, all of those things, But they don't do them out of any inherent evil, that is for sure.

Re:Baby destroyer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180023)

You could say the same about many of the great destroyers of history though!

Re:Baby destroyer. (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41180473)

The difference being that babies aren't capable (and aren't expected to be capable) of knowing better. Adults are, which makes their behavior evil even if they don't intend it to be. It's very rare (some would even argue impossible) for someone to actually intend to commit evil as such, but people can think evil actions are good (usually because of some kind of ignorance).

Re:Baby destroyer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41182585)

But they don't do them out of any inherent evil, that is for sure.

 
Oh, there's the saving grace. Sign me up.

They missed the most important thing (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41179841)

If the baby is really going to learn, they need something to run that robot in to. The key feature of the robot, if it an extension of the physical self, is to provide proper (not too harsh, not too soft) feedback when the baby runs into something that wants to block its attempts at doing something... like overprotective parents.

Kidding aside, the earliest learning that takes place is the simplest form of "this works, that doesn't" which is why kids spend so much time hitting things against other things just to see what happens. Recreating that experience in a mobility-limited child is not easy, but also very important.

Re:They missed the most important thing (2)

Xoltri (1052470) | about 2 years ago | (#41179967)

My youngest, 10 months old, when he first started crawling he would encounter an obstacle like a door or a chair leg and repeatedly bump into it harder and harder and then start to cry because it hurt. It's like he didn't understand he couldn't go through objects. Seems to be figuring it out now though...

Re:They missed the most important thing (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41180063)

To be fair, some things do "magically" get out of their way like curtains, pets, most other humans, soft furniture like pillows, etc. When you are 10 months old, these are mostly indistinguishable so it's a real chore to remember what moves and what doesn't. Isn't watching babies learn just the coolest thing?

Re:They missed the most important thing (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | about 2 years ago | (#41180173)

For sure, I could do without the newborn stage but once they start moving around they are fun to watch and interact with.

Re:They missed the most important thing (1, Flamebait)

Havenwar (867124) | about 2 years ago | (#41180221)

Well, I can't say I find it very cool. But then I suppose it could be, if you put curtains, pets, other humans, soft furniture like pillows in a room... and then hid heavy objects in/behind a few of these. Yeah, that would amuse me.

Especially with one of these robot babies, given the increased mobility of some sort of motorized transport, and the decreased mental function of some sort of retardation. Watching one of those little tykes on wheels bang repeatedly head first into a metal anvil hidden inside a pillow because it just can't figure out why this pillow is different from the other pillows...

Man, I wouldn't even bother coming to slashdot to laugh at the people who actually read the article any more, I'd be so entertained.

And that.... is why I am not allowed around children.

Re:They missed the most important thing (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#41180317)

Have you tested his eyesight?

Re:They missed the most important thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41182071)

Hopefully he gets better at learning what's bad for him, or you teach him better. Otherwise he might do stuff like this later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=629ZyumvjDg [youtube.com]

BTW escalators are dangerous - exposed moving parts - many kids have lost toes etc to them. Especially if they wear very soft sticky shoes that get pulled in...

For babies who need them (2)

backwardsposter (2034404) | about 2 years ago | (#41179871)

Am I the only one who read the title and thought "Okay, there's no need to get personal..."

Re:For babies who need them (2)

Len (89493) | about 2 years ago | (#41179931)

My thought was "EVERY baby needs a driveable robot!"

Re:For babies who need them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41190961)

Sure, why not?

Every baby needs a computer, after all.

Re:For babies who need them (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41180497)

No, but what got me was the first sentence, though. "Babies, as you may have noticed if you own one".

OWN ONE? I hate to break it to Toy Geek and timothy, but it's illegal to own humans these days.

Re:For babies who need them (2)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about 2 years ago | (#41182931)

The baby owns the parents.

FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41191073)

Baby pwns the parents.

It's only a matter of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179945)

Before the rest of us are using these a la Wall-E...

Re:It's only a matter of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180245)

You want to fuck Wall-E? No offence mate, but that's pretty sick.

Computer control reduces sloshing. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41179993)

Wee bots to help babies, nice. Can never start potty training too early.

Re:Computer control reduces sloshing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180079)

In Scotland and Ireland 'Wee' also means small (want some cake? just a wee bit please!), maybe there's a scottish/irish person in the company with a good sense of humour.

Re:Computer control reduces sloshing. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41182925)

Can never start potty training too early.

Good luck potty training a baby who can't walk. Once they're old enough to walk, THEN they're old enough to patty train. In my kids' cases, it was about 6 months of age.

Hello (2)

uncle brad (1989490) | about 2 years ago | (#41180195)

You don't own a baby, they own you.

Re:Hello (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41184661)

You don't own a baby, they own you.

Yeah, sure. Keep telling yourself that, whatever helps you sleep at night. Infant circumcision wouldn't exist if you truly thought that the babies even owned themselves... Let alone their unethical parents.

Re:Hello (1)

biggles69 (110392) | about 2 years ago | (#41185805)

When I read that I wondered if thinking of babies as chattels or property helps American parents rationalise their mutilation. Would circumcision would be less prevalent in the USA if parents knew that some of the doctors who cut babies are sadistic fetishists and paedophiles who get their sexual thrills from the act?

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2011/04/uk-doctor-struck-off-the-medical-registry-for-taking-circumcision-fetish-too-far.html [circumcisionandhiv.com]

Terrible idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180199)

While the intention of the researchers is no doubt a kind one, this is actually a terrible idea. Infants with mobility delays should be using physical therapy at every possible opportunity to overcome the mobility issues, not be given a crutch that decreases their chances and desire to move on their own. If the child ultimately proves unable to overcome the issues, then so be it. Providing a detour at such an early age is a huge disadvantage, even if it sounds noble to the layperson.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41180785)

While the intention of the researchers is no doubt a kind one, this is actually a terrible idea. Infants with mobility delays should be using physical therapy at every possible opportunity to overcome the mobility issues, not be given a crutch that decreases their chances and desire to move on their own. If the child ultimately proves unable to overcome the issues, then so be it. Providing a detour at such an early age is a huge disadvantage, even if it sounds noble to the layperson.

Shut the fuck up and read the article before commenting.

"It's turning out to be difficult for some babies to sit up enough to control the WeebBot by leaning, but in at least one case, a fifteen month old boy with cerebral palsy was able to learn to control a WeeBot, after which he started to develop crawling skills on his own."

As featured on the upcoming season of Dr. Who (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41180251)

Darbaby

DARBABY

DARBABY

Outrageously bad use of technology (4, Interesting)

dbc (135354) | about 2 years ago | (#41180281)

I love robots. I work in robotics. This is not an anti-robot rant. This is a rant about using technolgy inappropriately.

I know the develpers mean well, but it is clear the developers know nothing about neurology and child development. Kids with mobility problems don't need a machine that removes the need for them to develop. Kids with mobility development issues need 10X to 100X or maybe 1000X the mobility inputs. It needs to be broken down into smaller constituent components and trained intensively. Kids that can't creep, need to crawl. Kids that can't crawl, need to be patterned. Kids with mobility issues need 10X-1000X *MORE* movement inputs, not less movement input. If they can't do it themselves, then pattern them. A kid that can't creep by the normal age needs to spend nearly every waking hour crawling, wriggling, being patterned. When they can creep, they need to creep miles every day until the mid-brain comes together in good, cross-body coordinated creeping. Knee-walking needs to be eliminated so that they are forced to creep. That is the only way to fix the mid-brain injuries and other neurological injuries that these kids have. The brain grows by use. The brain shrinks by dis-use. Got that?

A robot that removes the need for them to move their legs is almost criminally stupid. It would be much better to build a robot that helps pattern the kids by putting the muscles through the correct natural movements.

This project is the poster child for why engineers need to gets their noses out of technology once in a while and understand some other part of the world's knowledge base. Anyone who knows anything about neurological development can see this is a well-meaning but naive disaster that is equivalent to injecting poison into these kids' nervous systems.

Re:Outrageously bad use of technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180695)

Would you feel the same way if Stephen Hawking used one to motor around? Or would you just steal his wheelchair?

Re:Outrageously bad use of technology (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41180789)

Did you read the article? If you did you would have seen the part that says "It's turning out to be difficult for some babies to sit up enough to control the WeebBot by leaning, but in at least one case, a fifteen month old boy with cerebral palsy was able to learn to control a WeeBot, after which he started to develop crawling skills on his own."

Re:Outrageously bad use of technology (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 2 years ago | (#41180813)

As a parent of a child with L4 Spina Bifida I have to agree with you.

I would MUCH rather see these guys working on neuro-spinal implants that would allow my baby girl's frayed spinal cord to be properly connected to all it's end points. Or on bio-engineering cellular lattices that would do the same thing. They should be focused on FIXING the problems, not going around them with silly solutions that cause more problems in the long run.

I want my baby to walk on her own two feet. Not be shuttled around on some contraption. They already have those, they are called Wheelchairs. DBC is absolutely right. These kids need therapy and medical intervention. Not a silly toy to ride around on.

Re:Outrageously bad use of technology (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41182807)

I'd mod you up if I had points. My oldest daughter never did learn to crawl; she discovered at about two months that she could cross a room by rolling, so she rolled everywhen until she she started learning to stand, which was about the normal time. If we'd stuck her in one of these robots she may well have never learned to walk.

Hah, yeah it'll just be for disabled kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180311)

And lazy babies. And lazy parents. And lunatic parents who don't want their kid to have to suffer the harsh fate of walking under their own power. They may step on something sharp, after all.

Future fighter pilots (1)

nadamucho (1063238) | about 2 years ago | (#41180377)

Who needs to train them to ever get up and walk? Just let them sit in larger and larger, more responsive chairs. They'll fly our jets with better reaction time than our top guns. Oh, but make sure there aren't any TABLES IN THE ROOM [Video @2:20]

Growth? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 years ago | (#41180441)

Is no one else aware of how quickly baby outgrow clothing?

Or of how exactly fit these kinds of robot aids need to be?

I know lots of cases where parents end up never using clothing bought for their kid because the kid outgrew them.

I'm betting that these medical aids are a tad more expensive than children's clothing.

Are we supposed to rent them?

Re:Growth? (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41180805)

Did you read the article? If you did you'd see that it was a standard platform that could accept any baby seat placed on top of it.

Re:Growth? (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 years ago | (#41181069)

It looks like the chair is easily replaceable. Snap off the old, put on a bigger one until they reach the point that the entire device is the chair.

3D printed magic arms (2)

dr_leviathan (653441) | about 2 years ago | (#41180481)

This cyborg baby article reminds me of another that I saw recently: a child with a muscle condition can move her arms with the help of some exoskeleton support whose parts were printed out with a 3D printer:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/08/3d-printed-magic-arms-give-a-little-girl-use-of-her-limbs/ [engadget.com]

Rugrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180799)

I'll take one. Can I get it in the shape of Reptar?

In a future time, children will work together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41180995)

to build a giant cyborg.

Why ? (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 2 years ago | (#41181255)

Are there still babies being born with Down syndrome and Spina Bifida ? I though tests of those (and others) were performed on all pregnant women, resulting in abortion in those cases.

Re:Why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41182121)

Are you kidding? It seems if cells reproduce, people want it to come out to call it a child no matter what it is...

Re:Why ? (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 2 years ago | (#41183253)

That only works with legitimate disabilities.

Re:Why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41183813)

Are legitimate disabilities like legitimate rape?

Re:Why ? (3, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 years ago | (#41184221)

Are there still babies being born with Down syndrome and Spina Bifida ? I though tests of those (and others) were performed on all pregnant women, resulting in abortion in those cases.

There are numerous couples around the world who have tried and tried to have a baby and never succeeded. For them, when finding out that their 20-week-old fetus may have a birth defect wouldn't change their mind about keeping the baby. Also some religious folks don't like these checks, so they see it as fate that they get a baby with disabilities (and they care for and love them the same as a normal baby).

I'm guess you've never been pregnant - despite what the right-wing says, getting an abortion even if your baby has defects, is very very traumatic and really not desired for many pregenant women. The bond that develops is a tough one to break - even if you know life will be difficult for the baby.

Also, when my daughter was born, she had to be checked to see if she had spina bifuda - she didn't but we were worried for some time... medical science is not quite there yet on detection and prevention.

Retarded Babies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41181303)

Maybe there is a good environmental reason retarded babies do not run around as much as their healthy counterparts.

The best intentions (1)

Necron69 (35644) | about 2 years ago | (#41181553)

And thus, this well intentioned invention will lead to the future envisioned in Disney's "Wall-E".

Frankly, I've never seen a more depressing movie in my life. I hope they save these Weebots for only the kids that really need them. Anything else is a lazy, slippery slope.

Necron69

Huh? Is this only for babies?? (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41184265)

What about the rest of us?!

Illegal in Canada (1)

crossmr (957846) | about 2 years ago | (#41185489)

As Canada is the only nation on the planet insane enough to ban walkers (with possession carrying a harsher penalty than negligent driving), these would likely fall under the ban of infant mobility devices.

omg (1)

muckracer (1204794) | about a year ago | (#41188097)

> a way to fuse babies with robots

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT put frickin' lasers on their heads!! :-o

Cyber babies!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41190769)

Rock and roll!

Hey baby... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41190853)

Wanna cyber?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>